Submarine Matters provides an expanding technical and political database concerning submarines worldwide. It can do research projects commissioned by consultancies, etc.

November 20, 2015

"Final" Responses for CEP Due in Ten Days - Japan has last word

The Table may be the most accurate published comparison of the three Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) contenders. (Table courtesy of News Corp Australia, 2015) Still, there are many inaccuracies for the picky:- the Table is a mix of current capabilities (which is wrong) and estimated future capabilities (more correct). Clear current mistakes are:

- conventional Barracuda's surfaced Displacement is likely to be 4,200-4,765 tonnes. Submerged displacement is unknown.- 216's website give a surfaced displacement of around 4,000 tonnes, so the "Submerged Displacement" in above Table will likely be considerably more than 4,000 tonnes.

- Cruise missile capability (Tomahawk or other AN/BYG-1 compatible) are very likely required.- The Australian government has already set the combat system to be the US AN/BYG-1. If the US refuses a contender access to this combat system that contender will be eliminated.

--------------------------------------------------------

Artist's conception of what an expanded Civmec, Henderson, WA, facility would look like if the future submarines were assembled there. Notice (left of center) 3 subs being built between the yellow supports. (Image courtesy communitynews)--------------------------------------------------------

This Submarine
Matters article has three parts – with just 10 days to go before final
responses are due for Australia’s future submarine
CEP.

1. Perhaps Greater Australian Competition

A November 18, 2015 news report that that two shipbuilding companies Forgacs (NSW) and Civmec (WA) may unite to compete more fully against large shipbuilders in SA and Victoria. This will hopefully boost competition in the submarine, frigate and offshore patrol boat builds.

"Newcastle [NSW] shipbuilder Forgacs expects selling its defence engineering division will lead to significant investment and more jobs. Western Australian firm Civmec, which employs 1,500 workers at its base in Henderson near Perth, wants to buy Forgacs.

It plans on making the Tomago shipyard Civmec's east coast headquarters, with the acquisition expected to create a leading national firm.

Forgacs chairman Peter Burgess said the deal is dependent on the approval of Civmec's shareholders..."

…Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine
Systems (TKMS) has offered to transform Australia into the shipbuilding hub of
the Asia-Pacific, a proposal recently echoed by France’s state-controlled DCNS.

....Of course, there are also
strategic considerations – former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was known to
favour Japan in order to cement the “special relationship” between the two
democratic U.S. allies. Even though Abbott’s ousting by Malcolm Turnbull has
helped ameliorate the perception of favoritism towards Japan, the underlying logic of a U.S.-Australia-Japan alignment remains sound.

Turnbull replacing Abbott might even end up being a
win for Japan – now, if the Japanese option is recommended and
chosen, no one can accuse the decision makers of bias and the Japanese bid can
be recognized as objectively in the best interest of Australia.

…Finally, cooperation with the United States is a key factor. Conventional
submarines, which are better at operating in Asia’s shallow coastal waters, can
complement and augment the United States’ all-nuclear undersea fleet.
Australia’s allergy to nuclear submarines may have started as a liability, by
hindering technology cooperation with their patron-ally, but now may be the
best guarantor for continued integration between U.S. and Australian forces –
and more importantly, their interests.

Australian Defense Minister Marise Payne provided some insight …:
“The selection balances key considerations, including high levels of
interoperability with our key ally, the U.S., opportunities to de-risk the combat systems, and synergies arising
from commonality between Collins and future submarines.”

The Australian government is expected to decide
which international partner Australia will work with early next year – but
don’t be surprised if the decision keeps getting pushed off. In Payne’s words, “The Government does not intend to be rushed. This is too important
a decision for that.” But a non-decision will have important consequences,
as Australia’s neighbors are also
modernizing theirundersea fleets. Even after a winner is chosen,
it will take another three years to finalize the processes and details of the
deal.

…After all, it’s not just the
submarines contract that shipbuilders must be prepared to deal with. Even though the three-way competitive
evaluation process for building eight or 12 submarines has been getting the
most attention, the Australian government is also preparing to award contracts for a fleet of frigates to replace the eight
ANZAC Class frigates and a new fleet of up to 21 offshore patrol boats in the
coming months.”

Recent photo, after Nakatani entered politics. Japanese Defence Minister Gen Nakatani throws himself from a parachute training simulator. Note that Gen (his first name not a previous rank) used to be a Captain in the Japanese Army's Ranger-parachute corps. Clearly he can do things that no other Defence Minister would dare attempt.
(Photo Courtesy Getty Images)

3.Japan to get last major sales opportunity with Australia on Sunday, November 22, 2015.

Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and Defense Minister Gen Nakatani will meet Sunday in Sydney with their Australian counterparts [Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, Defence Minister Marise Payne], officials said [November 17, 2015], with Tokyo aiming to pitch the advantages of teaming up to build Australia’s new fleet of submarines.

During the so-called two-plus-two [or "2 + 2"] security meeting, Kishida and Nakatani are expected to seek an edge over the German and French bids for what Canberra calls its “largest defense procurement program in history....”

So much is happening as the November 30, 2015 CEP deadline approaches.

13 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Hi Pete

From common sense, Japan will win a bid. Super Soryu AU is superior to TKMS 216 in various aspects: i) hull strength, ii) maximum submerged speed, iii) magnetic shielding; iv) stability of LIBs, v) reliability of production (less initial failure & no delivery delay), vi) well-defined cost calculation based on the life cycle analysis, vii) interconnectivity with US soft & hard ware system and so on. TKMS 216 seems to show advantage in low speed operation. Frankly speaking, I cannot understand why it takes so long time to decide. Further thinking is pain in the neck for bidders.

to follow common sense is not the best the way to make a proper decision. On the other side, the first step for a right decision would be to think about what you want to do. Just "more" is a very easy "decision".

Lets look at your points.

I) What is your definition of hull strength and how do you know Super Soryu is superior?

II) How do you know the maximum submerged speed of all contenders?

III) What about the German diamagnetic steel?

IV) Any proof for that?

V) Sure about that? Japan will not produce another Soryu. Didn't you mention Super Soryu? It will also have to contain some costume made features like English labeling.

VI) Japan has never exported a submarine. So how can Japan determine the costs for an export?

VII) OK, the US use the same Japanese computer hardware.

Some points to think about:

1) Type 212 with a submerged displacement of 1.800 t has a range of 8,000 nm. Soryu has about 6,000 and Super Soryu?

2) At the moment IDAS is the only operational anti helicopter missile system.

3) Germany supported the export of more than 60 submarines of just the Type 209.

II) How do you know the maximum submerged speed of all contenders?A. It is not the Max speed that matters, it is the transition speed that is critical for Australia. The batteries of the submarine is consumed by 2 factors: the propulsion load and hotel load (stuff like air conditions, lights, combat systems...etc). The propulsion load is about the square or cubic of the speed. So, if you want to double the speed, you need about 4 times (2X2) or 8 times (2X2X2) of propulsion load.

And so, how Type 212/214 achieve that "superior" endurance? Sail at very slow speed (4 to 5 knots), very low crew numbers and a much less power hungry but less capable combat systems (so much less hotel load). It takes 2 weeks to cover 1500km, and our submarines have to sail nearly 7000km to reach the operation area. If we do it in German's way, we have to return to base (with 70days provision as in Collins) before we reach our target.

Our Collins (and the future submarine) are transitioning at 10+ knots, have a much bigger crew, a much more power hungry combat system. So what is practical on Type 212/214 will not be true for the Type 216 (and that is a power consumption far beyond the fuel cell AIP on board TYPE212/214 can practically provide). So even the Type 216 have 4 diesel engines (twice the number on board type 214) in order to recharge the LIB fast enough.

Soryu has a higher transitioning speed, have a much bigger crew and a more power hungry combat system than the type 214/212. Not as crazy as our Collins but it is more close to "reality" than the spec. of type 216 on newspapers.

I) What is your definition of hull strength and how do you know Super Soryu is superior?III) What about the German diamagnetic steel?

A: Thant's a type of steel weaker than HY80 (which is used for Type214). Even HY80 only gives about 300m of operation depth, the German non-magnetic steel will be less than that. That may be acceptable for Baltic sea operations as the average depth is less than 50m, but absolutely not so for Pacific. On the other hand, the NS80/110 is way superior than even HY100 and gave Japanese submarines tactical advantages (in diving depth)to most nuclear submarines.

V) Sure about that? Japan will not produce another Soryu. Didn't you mention Super Soryu? It will also have to contain some costume made features like English labeling. VI) Japan has never exported a submarine. So how can Japan determine the costs for an export?3) Germany supported the export of more than 60 submarines of just the Type 209.A: Japanese have been exporting and manufacturing cars in Australia for more than 30 years. They have participate much big infrastructure projects (from BHP-Mitsubishi Alliance to Toyota) in Australia than the German or France. So I really don't see how those so-called language barrier or cultural barrier is an issue.

Also, Japanese have a continuous build programme for their submarines for decades, their next generation submarine (29SS, an evolved Soryu) will be what the "Aussie Soryu" based on. So I don't see any problem with supply of parts.

Many "bad names" tainted on Soryu were from those special interest groups from SA, that is far from truth.

2) At the moment IDAS is the only operational anti helicopter missile system.A: That's not part of the RAN's requirement for the future submarine. In fact, as most navies ( including china) don't have any anti submarine weapons that can kill a submarine sailing 600m undersea surface (which is an operation depth Soryu capable of), why do I need an anti helicopter missile system?

QuestionHow can Australian people know the range of the Soryu?Many Australian raise the "inadequate range" as one of the biggest concerns of the so called Option J.But, as far as I know, Japan has never exposed it at all.

Some may say that it's quite natural to imagine her short range because of her big AIP compartment that should be squeezing her fuel compartment.It can't be true however, because the fuel compartment of the Soryu is said to be in the area between outer and inner hull.

I don't understand how does some Australian media even determine it's range as approximately 6100km.

How can you say Super Soryu is an evidence?(Answer) The Nuclear Barracuda, basic model of the Shortfin Barracuda is still under constructing, but TKMS 216 and Super SoryuAU have basic models (TKMS 214, Soryu) which are currently in operation. I cannot compare the Shortfin Barracuda with other two contenders.

- No anti-helicopter missile(Answer) Super Soryu does not have it.

- No Cruise missile, - No VLS(Answer) Super Soryu does not have them. If Australia hopes and US supports, it is possible. I do not think that cruise missile and VLS which need extra power are suitable for powerless conventional submarine. After shooting, enemy satellite identifies submarine’s position and enemy sends hunter killers, but conventional submarine cannot escape easily. Cruise missile and VLS are weapons for nuclear submarines.

- No experience in transferring technologies and outsourcing production.(Answer) JMSDF has not the experience, but, many private companies participating Soryu project are very famous and have the experience, some of them have many foreign branches. For example, Boeing 787 adopts LIBs of GS YUASA which is supplier of LIBs for Soryu. About communication of Japan, first Japanese delegation for Australia showed bad communication and was heavily criticized, but, Japan has changed and tries to communicate local government and industries.

I) What is your definition of hull strength and how do you know Super Soryu is superior?(Answer) High strength steel for pressure hull of Super Soryu is very possibly NS80 and NS110 which is stronger than HY100.

II) How do you know the maximum submerged speed of all contenders?(Answer) I assumed that power from LIBs controlled maximum submerged speed, and I estimated submerged speed from energy density and numbers of LIBs to be loaded. From beam and size of fuel cell section etc. of TKMS 216, I assumed that TKMS 216 loaded considerably less LIBs than Super Soryu. As a result, I concluded that Super Soryu showed higher maximum submerged speed than TKMS 216. I did not take into account of the Shortfin Barracuda.

III) What about the German diamagnetic steel?(Answer)There are three possible issues in application of German diamagnetic steel (EN 1.3964 for TYPE212A submarine): i) relatively low strength (proof strength of EN 1.3964 is nearly half of NS110), ii) higher price (As EN 1.3964 contains 20-21.5% Ni and 15-17% Cr which are 10 times more expensive magnetic HY80, it becomes is very expensive.), and iii) technology export approval by Italian shipbuilder, Fincantieri-Cantieri Navali Italiani SpA (TYPE212A was developed by collaboration of HDW an Fincantieri. Fincantieri did not reach an agreement with HDW to independently export derivatives of the submarines [1].). EN 1.3964 may be applicable to fuel cell module comprising a magnetic shielding thanks to patent of Siemens.

IV) Any proof for that?(Answer) JMSDF (Japan Maritime Defense Force) proved stability years ago. Further validation of LIBs will be conducted by using FY2017 and 2018 Soryus with LIBs.

V) Sure about that? Japan will not produce another Soryu. Didn't you mention Super Soryu? It will also have to contain some costume made features like English labeling.(Answer)Delivery delays or initial failure are not reported for modern Japanese submarine.

VI) Japan has never exported a submarine. So how can Japan determine the costs for an export?(Answer) Export cost depends on Australia’s situation. Every year, MOD (Ministry of Defense) calculates LCC (life cycle cost) of main equipment including submarine. LCC which is calculated based on proven data (actual operation) predicts total cost from design to abolishment, and is most reliable. I want to know whether TKMS includes total cost from design to abolishment in 20BD and how TKMS calculates LCC, because each navy does not disclose operation data.

4) What type of diesel engines will the Super Soryu have?(Answer) I appreciate MTU diesel engines, but KHI diesel is best selection. MTU exports diesel engine to China, we should not share main equipment like a diesel engine with China. KHI is traditional supplier of diesel engine and is involved in snorkel generation system.

I correct comment (November 21, 2015 at 5:14 AM) and show additional information.

Before correction III) What about the German diamagnetic steel? (Answer)--- ii) higher price---it becomes is very expensive.After correctionIII) What about the German diamagnetic steel? (Answer)--- ii) higher price---it becomes very expensive.

Before correction V) Sure about that? ---(Answer)Delivery delays or initial failure are not reported for modern Japanese submarine.After correctionV) Sure about that? ---(Answer)Delivery delay or initial failure are not reported for modern Japanese submarine. TKMS 214 shows some troubles including serious initial failures in S Korea more than 10 years ago and serious delivery delay in Turkey,this year [2, 3]. We cannot say that production stability of TKMS is higher than that of MHI/KHI.

Addition of reference[2]http://defence.pk/threads/thyseen-krupp-may-pay-100-million-%E2%82%AC-penalty-for-the-2-year-delays.356967/#ixzz3rVinU3JV“Thyseen Krupp May Pay 100 Million € Penalty For the 2 Year Delays”[3]http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/german-company-will-pay-compe%E2%80%A6n-submarine-delivery-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=78260&NewsCatID=345“German company will pay compensation to Turkey over delay in submarine delivery”

Where you ask "I don't understand how does some Australian media even determine it's range as approximately 6100km."

Wikipedia and other authoritative sources (not) record what Japanesee MoD claims. See right side bar of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-class_submarine where it says "6,100 nm @ 6.5 knots[citation needed]"

The CEP assessors would have received very detailed range figures from Japan - figures that are kept secret from us all.

Submarine Matters

Director, Submarine Matters International. I analyse international trends, technical and political - mainly on submarines, sometimes on surface ships, aircraft, missiles and their nuclear warheads. This website started in 2007. I have a Masters Degree (International Relations (Strategic Studies)) High Distinction average. I'm happy to do research projects commissioned by consultancies, etc. The best way to navigate this site is to put a keyword in the search box top left corner.